Regarding the gun, Defendant 2 claimed that he did not see a gun on the deceased at the time of the incident, and that he did not remember at what point Defendant 1 took the gun; When asked why he said in the interrogation that he held the deceased's hands because he was afraid to allow him to escape because of the gun, he replied that he did not remember saying that or why he said it. He further clarified that defendant 1 did not threaten him with the gun, and that he lied when he said it under pressure and in order to give credibility to his words (pp. 494-498).
According to him, as soon as he met with a lawyer, he told him about the threats and promises made by the police, and the two lawyers who represented him advised him to stick to the version he had given, and therefore he repeated the words in subsequent interrogations as well, even after he saw that he was not being released even though he had confessed. He repeated the same false version during several interrogations, because he was asked the same questions (pp. 472-474, 481, 485-486, 489, 499, 503-505).
Discussion and Decision
The factual aspect
As stated, a significant part of the facts of the indictment are not in dispute between the parties, with the main dispute revolving around the offense of premeditated murder attributed to the defendants, i.e., whether they planned in advance to kill the deceased, and whether they acted in accordance with this plan with the intention of causing his death.
There is no dispute between the parties that prior to the incident, a deal was made between the defendants and the deceased, whereby they would purchase about 70 grams of cannabis from the deceased at a price of NIS 60 per gram, even though the defendants never intended to pay the deceased for the drug; and that after they had the drug, the defendants led the deceased to the forest under the false pretense that he would receive the money in exchange for the drug. There is no dispute that the defendants assaulted the deceased (although there is a dispute as to the extent of the assault); that after the assault they dragged the deceased to his car, went to buy fuel and a lighter in order to set the car on fire, and when they returned they set fire to the car with the deceased inside; Although they claim that today, the deceased would have died when the vehicle was set on fire. There is also no dispute that the death of the deceased was caused as a result of the defendants' actions.